Abstract
We reexamine the limits of parallelism available in programs, using run-time reconstruction of program data-flow graphs. While limits of parallelism have been examined in the context of superscalar and VLIW machines, we also wish to study the causes of observed parallelism by examining the structure of the reconstructed data-flow graph. One aspect of structure analysis that we focus on is the isolation of instructions involved only in address calculations. We examine how address calculations present in RISC instruction streams generated by optimizing compilers affect the shape of the data-flow graph and often significantly reduce available parallelism.
Chapter PDF
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
T. M. Austin and G. S. Sohi. Dynamic dependency analysis of ordinary programs. In 19th ISCA, pages 342–351, May 1992.
J. W. Davidson and S. Jinturkar. Improving instruction-level parallelism by loop unrolling and dynamic memory disambiguation. In MICRO-28, Dec. 1995.
A. Nicolau and J. A. Fisher. Measuring the parallelism available for very long instruction word architectures. IEEE Trans. Comput., C-33(11):968–976, Nov. 1984.
D. W. Wall. Limits of instruction-level parallelism. WRL Research Report 93/6, Digital Equipment Corporation, Western Research Laboratory, Palo Alto, CA, Nov. 1993.
C. C. Foster and E. M. Riseman. Percolation of code to enhance parallel dispatching and execution. IEEE Trans. Comput., C-21(12):1411–1415, Dec. 1972.
N. P. Jouppi. The nonuniform distribution of instruction-level and machine parallelism and its effect on performance. IEEE Trans. Comput., 38(12):1645–1658, Dec. 1989.
M. D. Smith, M. Johnson, and M. A. Horowitz. Limits on multiple instruction issue. In ASPLOS III, pages 290–302, Boston, Massachusetts, 1989.
M. Butler, T.-Y. Yeh, Y Patt, M. Alsup, H. Scales, and M. Shebanow. Single instruction stream parallelism is greater than two. In 18th ISCA, pages 276–286, May 1991.
M. S. Lam and R. P. Wilson. Limits of control flow on parallelism. In 19th ISCA, pages 46–57, May 1992.
M. A. Postiff, D. A. Greene, G. S. Tyson, and T. N. Mudge. The limits of instructions level parallelism in SPEC95 applications. In 3rd Workshop on Interaction Between Compilers and Computer Architecture, Oct. 1998.
J. L. Hennessy and D. A. Patterson. Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach. Morgan Kaufman Publishers, Inc., San Mateo, California, 1996. Second Edition.
K. EbcioÄŸlu, E. R. Altman, S. Sathaye, and M. Gschwind. Optimizations and oracle parallelism with dynamic translation. In MICRO-32, Nov. 1999.
D. Burger and T. M. Austin. The SimpleScalar tool set, version 2.0. Computer Architecture News, pages 13–25, June 1997.
D. Stefanović and M. Martonosi. On availability of bit-narrow operations in general-purpose applications. In 10th FPL, Villach, Austria, 2000.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Stefanović, D., Martonosi, M. (2000). Limits and Graph Structure of Available Instruction-Level Parallelism. In: Bode, A., Ludwig, T., Karl, W., Wismüller, R. (eds) Euro-Par 2000 Parallel Processing. Euro-Par 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1900. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44520-X_144
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44520-X_144
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67956-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44520-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive